Okay,
so now explain what we are seeing in the picture here. It looks like a very short and small horn lens on the bass driver and I am assuming that the upper three devices are in a dipole configuration from just looking. Is there a scientific reason for the upper baffles shape or is that just for looks? Why so much more reflective surface above the tweeter than on the sides? Very unusual to say the least.
so now explain what we are seeing in the picture here. It looks like a very short and small horn lens on the bass driver and I am assuming that the upper three devices are in a dipole configuration from just looking. Is there a scientific reason for the upper baffles shape or is that just for looks? Why so much more reflective surface above the tweeter than on the sides? Very unusual to say the least.
The bass config is used to cancel forces on the baffle (it's not a lens). The upper section is such that each driver crosses over to a smaller one before starting to beam. This, according to SL, makes it behave as a point source. The baffle shape is specific to the design.
I was at BAF and heard it. Nothing short of spectacular. Timbre and tone were spot on, and the imaging was wide and very deep. Surprisingly, it was capable of quite high SPLs. I also attended RMAF, and the LX521 was far, far ahead of anything there.
I was at BAF and heard it. Nothing short of spectacular. Timbre and tone were spot on, and the imaging was wide and very deep. Surprisingly, it was capable of quite high SPLs. I also attended RMAF, and the LX521 was far, far ahead of anything there.
Gents,
FYI, SL has updated his website with an excellent description of the LX521 evolution.
LX521 Description
Dave.
FYI, SL has updated his website with an excellent description of the LX521 evolution.
LX521 Description
Dave.
I was exhibiting in SL's room at Burning Amp so I got to hear his speakers quite often during the day. Several times I was honestly quite amazed at the quality of sound reproduction!
I have had open baffle and W-frame projects on the back burner for awhile, often taking new directions as I consider changes in drivers, layout, etc. Now that I have heard SL's system I am hoping to finally get my own efforts off the ground and see what I can come up with, using drivers that are worth about 10% of the ones in the LX521 (since that's about what I can afford!).
-Charlie
I have had open baffle and W-frame projects on the back burner for awhile, often taking new directions as I consider changes in drivers, layout, etc. Now that I have heard SL's system I am hoping to finally get my own efforts off the ground and see what I can come up with, using drivers that are worth about 10% of the ones in the LX521 (since that's about what I can afford!).
-Charlie
..so can warts.
The subs not bad.. but the top is like a cardboard vase prop.
(..JohnK's recent offering has similar aesthetic problems, sort of a stubby wooden Aerius without the front arc - still, better than it's predecessor.)
As for clean modern design, both could take more than few "lessons" from your recent effort.
Last edited:
They are loudspeakers. They are designed to be listened to. If you don't like "looking" at speakers you can:
a) put a grill around them
b) get some nice "in-ceiling" units disguised to look like smoke detectors.
A bit more than that, you'll find . . . at least to get it right . . .
But you knew that . . .
...or on/in-wall. I'm not sure that putting a freestanding speaker in a room is really such a great idea...
..so can warts.
The subs not bad.. but the top is like a cardboard vase prop.
(..JohnK's recent offering has similar aesthetic problems, sort of a stubby wooden Aerius without the front arc - still, better than it's predecessor.)
As for clean modern design, both could take more than few "lessons" from your recent effort.
Part of the idea of my revision is provide grills so that the appearance will be similar to my other system. I'm old school and I don't want to see the drivers.
Aesthetics is difficult with such designs. It's cut and test and then there is the issue of structural rigidity. These small baffle can flex quite a bit in response to the forces applied by the midrange drivers.
Duhh.. Sure, that would definitely be a dipole!
have you spent more than 3min on SL's or JK website? I guess not..
Duhh.. Sure, that would definitely be a dipole!
have you spent more than 3min on SL's or JK website? I guess not..
4 mins.
What makes you think that putting a freestanding speaker (boxed or dipole) in a room would be such a good idea? What is the premise of optimal sound reproduction? A reverberant sound field that is spectrally very different from the direct sound (most boxed speakers)? Radiating half the energy towards the front wall while minimizing lateral reflections (dipoles)?
the response from the back wave of a good dipole IS spectrally similar to the front wave, that is the difference with the typical box speaker.. What you do with that wave is your decision, absorb it or diffuse it into ambiance, depending on what type of sound you are after. But you know that don't you?
SL has stated it very clearly for years now, place the speaker into the room so the reflections are delayed by at least 6ms...
SL has stated it very clearly for years now, place the speaker into the room so the reflections are delayed by at least 6ms...
Personally I think that if we didn't have to worry about moving or making holes in walls that Markus has the better of the two approaches. In wall eliminates so many problems with reflections in rooms that it really should be the preferred method of reproduction. If I didn't have to worry about landlords or the fact that most walls are just not deep enough I would use the inwall method without a second thought. If you are stuck with a traditional setup then we have to deal with room reflections and speaker placement with a much higher order of possibilities. Not to knock Dipoles but you can have them, I am not a fan of that approach even though I highly respect Mr. Linkowitz and his analysis methods. And I doubt that many wives would find his current design appealing, they are just plain ugly. And the suggestion that you just place a grill in front of them would change the character of the sound enough to discount the entire design. Then what do you do about the back side and having to see the ugly drivers sticking out. To each there own. that is the nature of this sound business.
Not really. Only recently backfiring tweeters became "desirable" for dipoles.
Pretty hard and/or impractical to absorb energy once it escaped into the room.
What happens when reflections are delayed by 6ms? Delay them by 6ms and everything's fine? What about number, angle, spectral content, delay? Doesn't matter? By the way, what about floor and ceiling?
By the way you skipped over the lateral reflection part of my last post
There is psychoacoustic research that suggests that lateral reflections enhance spaciousness (Toole). If spaciousness is desirable, then why actively reduce them (dipole)?Thanks but what about ON wall? Virtually nobody does it. Why? No benefits? Commercial designs wouldn't fit in a shipping container and DIYers only build things they have seen elsewhere?
You could use them to hang a coat
Not really. Only recently backfiring tweeters became "desirable" for dipoles.
Pretty hard and/or impractical to absorb energy once it escaped into the room.
What happens when reflections are delayed by 6ms? Delay them by 6ms and everything's fine? What about number, angle, spectral content, delay? Doesn't matter? By the way, what about floor and ceiling?
By the way you skipped over the lateral reflection part of my last post
I find this remark funny from someone who uses SUMMAS.
If you do toe in dipoles 45 degres, yes, you cancel the side reflection. If you set them straight, they come into play. I find that feature quite interesting and it gives you more options.
back firing tweeters have been around for a long while you know.. SL had a design back in 87. Is that old enough?
The 6ms is a psychoacoustic trick, 6ms is the minimum allowed to make it work, you could do more if your room allows. that includes ceiling, but not floor obviously, which is ok, because we have been used to comb filtering from ground for millions of years now. You included!
Microphones dont have a brain, we do!I have nothing against on wall speakers, I would rather have that for HT actually. But good, simple recordings on dipoles with controled room reflections is something different. Some might not like it, but it's worth trying. A great sound experience might after all not be only a direct sound issue.
Last edited:
Every time I have listened to an in wall system it has sounded very flat (pun intended), lacking in 3-dimensionality. Some how this is different than even large baffle speakers (like my 3' x 3 1/2' NaO DW).
And why is the wife important? She is not suppose to object to what happens in the listening room. I mean, seriously, are you really going to try to set up a high quality audio system around a living room decor? No, it's the other way around. The decor is part of the system. What chair goes where, what is hung on the walls, how heavy are the curtains. My experience is that a pretty good speaker will sound a lot better in a well laid out room that an excellent speaker dropped in the middle of an average living room.
And why is the wife important? She is not suppose to object to what happens in the listening room. I mean, seriously, are you really going to try to set up a high quality audio system around a living room decor? No, it's the other way around. The decor is part of the system. What chair goes where, what is hung on the walls, how heavy are the curtains. My experience is that a pretty good speaker will sound a lot better in a well laid out room that an excellent speaker dropped in the middle of an average living room.